2012 (11) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal. 3. The respondent-assessee submitted his self-assessed returns of income, quantifying at Rs.1,44,74,480/. Assessee's income was assessed Rs.1,45,40,721/under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On 29th September,1976, this returns was subjected to proceeding under section 148 and ex parte order was passed on 29.3.1982 which was vacated on 8.7.1982 and the case was reopened under section 146. Then the assessee submitted another returns of income of Rs.1,96,91,399/on 12th January, 1984. After several rounds of appeals etc., ultimately the tax liability of the assessee was determined by the appellate order dated 24th March, 1992. The issue involved in this Tax Appeal is only whether the assessee, who himself submitted revised r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of the ITAT) and did not pay self-assessment tax on the difference of income between revised return of income and original return of income? (C) Whether the income tax Department should not be compensated by way of realising interest under section 220(2) for delayed payment of legitimate Government dues which always remained quantified to the extent of Assessee's liability to pay balance self-assessment tax in pursuance of revised return by him on 12.1.1984?   Though three questions of law have been framed, in our opinion, they, in fact, only constitute one question, which we have already referred above and it will answer all three questions. 5. According to the learned counsel for the Revenue, Sri Deepak Roshan, it is clear from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....61 provides for issuance of demand notice for the cases wherein any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any "order passed" under the Act of 1961 and then the assessee is required to be served with a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable. In contra, in this case, no such order was required to be passed by any Assessing Officer demanding the tax or interest liability to the assessee, when the assessee was liable to pay tax and interest by his own assessment under section 140A. Therefore, without there being any notice under section 156 issued on 12th January, 1984, prior to 24th March, 1992, the assessee was liable to pay the tax and interest. However, the assessee since h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on judgment of Calcutta High Court delivered in the case of Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [1995] 211 ITR 610 (CAL). Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon one judgment of Calcutta High Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chloride India Ltd. reported in [1990] 186 ITR 217 (CAL). 8. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions of law. 9. It is clear from section 140A that after taking into account the relevant factors as enumerated in sub-clause (i) to (v) under subsection (1) of section 140A, the assessee is liable to assess his income and to pay tax calculated according to the above provisions toget....